What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4666370 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4666370?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666370?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9418273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4666370 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4666370?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666370?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9418273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4666370 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenant has until Sunday 24 September 2023 to remove the dog from the tenancy premises. If the dog is still there after 24 September 2023, then the tenancy of Murray Balsley at [Tenancy address suppressed] will be terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was notified about the hearing, but he did not attend.
The tenancy premises is a self-contained studio apartment in a complex with 100 other apartments. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, namely having a dog which is disturbing the neighbours. The neighbours in question are also tenants of the landlord. The issues I have to decide are: • Has the dog disturbed the neighbours? • Has the landlord served a 14 day notice that complies with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)? • Should the tenancy be terminated?

Has the dog disturbed the neighbours?

Section 40(2)(c) RTA sets out that tenants shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. The landlord submitted that the dog has been disturbing the neighbours since January 2022, when the tenant moved in. I have been provided with supporting documents which show neighbours have complained to the landlord on at least five occasions this year.
Two neighbours came to the hearing to give evidence. They both described how the dog barks during the day and during the night and how they can hear the barking from inside their apartments. They explained the dog roams around outside, not on a lead. They said the dog is large and it is frightening to come across an unrestrained dog in the public spaces, such as in the stairwell. They said there is dog excrement around the grounds and the tenant never picks this up. I find the dog has disturbed the neighbours.

Has the landlord served a 14 day notice that complies with the RTA?

The landlord has served three 14 day notices this year. The most helpful notice for the application is the one given on 31 May 2023. This notice states it is given because of a breach of section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. See section 56(1) RTA.
The tenant has breached his obligations by allowing his dog to disturb the neighbours. This is a breach capable of remedy. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 31 May 2023 asking the tenant to remove the dog by 21 June 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. I find this notice meets the requirements of the RTA.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

I have to decide if it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The landlord has had concerns about the dog disturbing the neighbours since the start of the tenancy. I can see from the supporting documents that they have tried many ways to connect with the tenant and find a solution. They have issued many warnings, which have been ignored. It seems most likely to me the breach of disturbing the neighbours is deliberately committed, because the landlord has raised the issue with the tenant, issued 14 day notices and filed this application for an order of the Tribunal, yet the barking and the roaming continue. The landlord has been proactive in managing the situation.
The tenant did engage community law after the 14 day notice sent in May 2023 and there is a letter from a doctor stating the dog is an informal support animal. However, I do not have any further information from the tenant about this, and a support animal that disturbs the neighbours would still be a breach of the RTA.
I find the evidence from the witnesses to be persuasive and find the breach is impacting on their right to reasonable peace and comfort in their homes. This must be taken seriously. I find that removing the dog is a proportionate response. The tenant should have one last chance to move the dog out. If he does not then the tenancy will end, and I find this is a proportionate response as well.
Suppression is allowed to protect the identity of the witnesses.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenant has until Sunday 24 September 2023 to remove the dog from the tenancy premises. If the dog is still there after 24 September 2023, then the tenancy of Murray Balsley at [Tenancy address suppressed] will be terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was notified about the hearing, but he did not attend.
The tenancy premises is a self-contained studio apartment in a complex with 100 other apartments. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, namely having a dog which is disturbing the neighbours. The neighbours in question are also tenants of the landlord. The issues I have to decide are: • Has the dog disturbed the neighbours? • Has the landlord served a 14 day notice that complies with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)? • Should the tenancy be terminated?

Has the dog disturbed the neighbours?

Section 40(2)(c) RTA sets out that tenants shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. The landlord submitted that the dog has been disturbing the neighbours since January 2022, when the tenant moved in. I have been provided with supporting documents which show neighbours have complained to the landlord on at least five occasions this year.
Two neighbours came to the hearing to give evidence. They both described how the dog barks during the day and during the night and how they can hear the barking from inside their apartments. They explained the dog roams around outside, not on a lead. They said the dog is large and it is frightening to come across an unrestrained dog in the public spaces, such as in the stairwell. They said there is dog excrement around the grounds and the tenant never picks this up. I find the dog has disturbed the neighbours.

Has the landlord served a 14 day notice that complies with the RTA?

The landlord has served three 14 day notices this year. The most helpful notice for the application is the one given on 31 May 2023. This notice states it is given because of a breach of section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. See section 56(1) RTA.
The tenant has breached his obligations by allowing his dog to disturb the neighbours. This is a breach capable of remedy. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 31 May 2023 asking the tenant to remove the dog by 21 June 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. I find this notice meets the requirements of the RTA.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

I have to decide if it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The landlord has had concerns about the dog disturbing the neighbours since the start of the tenancy. I can see from the supporting documents that they have tried many ways to connect with the tenant and find a solution. They have issued many warnings, which have been ignored. It seems most likely to me the breach of disturbing the neighbours is deliberately committed, because the landlord has raised the issue with the tenant, issued 14 day notices and filed this application for an order of the Tribunal, yet the barking and the roaming continue. The landlord has been proactive in managing the situation.
The tenant did engage community law after the 14 day notice sent in May 2023 and there is a letter from a doctor stating the dog is an informal support animal. However, I do not have any further information from the tenant about this, and a support animal that disturbs the neighbours would still be a breach of the RTA.
I find the evidence from the witnesses to be persuasive and find the breach is impacting on their right to reasonable peace and comfort in their homes. This must be taken seriously. I find that removing the dog is a proportionate response. The tenant should have one last chance to move the dog out. If he does not then the tenancy will end, and I find this is a proportionate response as well.
Suppression is allowed to protect the identity of the witnesses.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666370 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666370 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the dog disturbed the neighbours?

Has the landlord served a 14 day notice that complies with the RTA?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the dog disturbed the neighbours?

Has the landlord served a 14 day notice that complies with the RTA?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions